Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
. yorktown, appomattox, the pentagon where 9/11 occurred -- there is a ceremony tonight i will be commissioned in -- there is a commission in april. we care very deeply about these events. one in nine virginians birth to death is a veteran. when you add in the guard and reserve and contractors, now you are probably talking about one in three of us. we care very deeply about all that is within dod. let me be plain, the threat that virginians and others are talking about now more than ever is the inability of congress to find a way forward on a reasonable budget compromise. that is what is in the newspapers and the headlines. at the direction of the deputy director, dod is planning for future cuts. i am very worried at the macro level about dod's ability to pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in this time of congressional inability to find a budget compromise. the current cr limits flexibility, for example, of the military to appropriately taylor resources, we have no flexibility to deal with a shortfall. and to me, it seems like funding the military
that came out recently. it did suggest the pentagon is pushing the pentagon that would only keep 8000 troops in afghanistan. i know that general austin, you weren't a part of the process so far, but can you support a plan that was scheduled withdraws troops in advance? you know, we're looking at withdraws troops in afghanistan and according to this article from a passing down to 1000 within a short period of time, i have questions if we can even maintain our mission, let alone complete the mission. how can you make decisions on troop withdraw when sec previously, so much depends on the ground, what the government is doing, what variability eyes up to that point. how would you approach a proposal like that? >> i certainly would first really work hard to make sure i fully understood with the leadership wanted to get done moving into the future. certainly my advice is the commander on the ground or commander central command would provide my advice based upon breaking the security forces are and the conditions in theater and what i think we need to do to move forward to make sure we maintain the
is confirmed and sworn in." close quote. so if anybody's under any misapprehension, i believe the pentagon press secretary has made that clear, we have a secretary of defense. he has not resigned, and he will continue to serve until such time as his successor is sworn in. and i would just say again to my friend, the senator from illinois, the assistant majority leader, we all know what a filibuster is. a filibuster is designed to kill a nomination or to defeat legislation, as the senator from tennessee said. and i would say this is equivalent to what happened back in 2005, and i have a letter here, mr. president, i'd like to ask unanimous consent to be made part of the record following my remarks. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: and i will refer to it. this is a letter signed by chris dodd, our former colleague who served on the foreign relations committee, and joe biden when he was the ranking member of the foreign relations committee back in 2005. it's entitled "dear democratic colleague, we write to urge you to oppose the cloture on the bolton nomination tonight. w
effect. the pentagon needs a seasoned leader to diplomat these cuts, cuts for which an overwhelmingly majority of republicans in congress voted. the so-called sequester, mr. president, was supported by 174 republicans in the house of representatives, 28 republicans here in the senate, 60% and 75% of the two republican bodies in this country. we have a balanced proposal to replace those across-the-board cuts for this year with smart spending reductions which must continue, a measure to close corporate tax loopholes and wasteful subsidies. and revenue from the wealthiest among us, americans making millions of dollars each year. it's critical that the republicans and democrats come together to find a balanced way to avert these drastic cuts. the consequence of the so-called sequester cuts are real not only for national defense but for millions of american families and businesses alike. three-quarters of a million jobs, 750,000 jobs, mr. president, are at stake. across the country tens of thousands of teachers, including thousands of workers with disabled children would be laid off. 70,00
the government watching? >>brian: the government will provide life lock for the pentagon, which we offer now is some kind of protection because we don't want all our secret cables to be exposed by idiots like the one we just had -- >> that's different from what the president did the other day. the government has an obligation to protect the pentagon. the government does not have an obligation to protect you or fox news or me or "the new york times." so what's the government going to do? the government is going to share information with major internet providers. and pretty soon it's going to say to the internet providers, all that information we gave you about us, we now want information about you. we want to know about kilmeade's e-mails. we're worried about him. we want to know who he's pha*eulg -- e-mailing so we can keep him safe. baloney. protect the government, but leave the rest of us with privacy. if you're going to interfere with the internet, should it be done by the command of one person -- the president -- or should it be done after great national debate and the congress? >>gretch
the pentagon and military posts have strong seasoned leadership teams. regardless of having the secretary or not having one is a portent concern. -- a point of concern. you have a good strong team that will be able to manage through this process. they have seen this coming. as you would expect the military to do, they are prepared. host: new hampshire, and the pennant caller -- caller: morning and thank you. i am so tired of the irresponsibility of the republicans. the chuck hagel thing is preposterous. how does it serve the nation to delay the president's choice? it is the first time in history that a filibuster has been used against a cabinet the sequester is the height of irresponsibility. why risk a potential double dip recession just so you can score political points? finally, you criticized the president for being out of washington and yet, -- that was and finally -- hear you are supporting a filibuster and finally, though you partly answer the question or just now, what your district and tails are large installations, i assume, other than fort campbell in your district. my brother
the confirmation of former senator chuck hagel to head the pentagon seems more likely. senate republicans successfully held up the process seeking clarification about mr. hagel's views on israel and iran and pressed the administration for more answers about the deadly benghazi terrorist attack. chief congressional correspondent mike emanuel is live in washington with more details on all of this. mike, what is the latest from top republicans from the hab gel nomination. >> reporter: senator john mccain said what we've been reporting which is after this recess the senate will up the nomination and the expectation senator chuck hagel will votes necessary to be confirmed. his colleague, senator lindsey graham explained why. >> because i do believe the president has great deference. here's the question for of the country. can we do better than that? i think so. the president chose a controversial nominee that refuses to sign letters supporting israel during the 2000 infin todd today. refused to iranian guard as terrorist organization. refused to sign a letter asking the e.u. designates hezboll
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)